Just another South Western School District Blogs site

In his essay, B.S. Fields describes the roles of sin and crime in Willy Loman’s tragic downfall in Death of Salesman. As such, the critic’s struggle to describe a play is actually an attempt to match that hamartia with those consequences. Thus, the question becomes how much is Willy’s outcome just consequence of his hamartia? The shared contention by most critics is that Willy committed a crime for which he is justly punished.

Most of the negative criticism of this play explains that because the play is not unified and coherent compared to other classical tragedies, the story aims to accomplish the great. A modern realistic tragedy, even in theory, serves multiple purposes. Specifically, these tragedies are rooted not in eternal conditions, but rather in the immediate and ever shifting conditions of men’s relations with each other and with their institutions. Thus, a modern play, to be successful, even to be effective tragedy, should not serve one singular purpose. In contrast, a modern drama will present “manifold causes of a manifold catastrophe illustrating a manifold theme.”

When looking to Willy, many groups insist that Willy’s isolation from nature while others reveal that Willy suffers from a lack of love, a loss of identity, a worship of the False God of Personality. The numerous causes of Willy’s disaster are depicted in equal variety. He is defeated by society; he is too weak and immoral for any social conditions; he once made a wrong choice of careers; he married a woman who tried to stifle his sense of adventure; or simply that he got too old. These conditions suggest Willy’s internal dilemma is also problematic. In essence, he suffered a miserable and pointless death while facing the agony of seeing that he had worthless sons.

First thing’s first, title: What The Handmaid’s Tale Can Teach Us About Coerced Women by Carol A. Lambert. So in light of International Women’s day a day or two ago this is gonna be a psychological feminist article from The Handmaid’s Tale. So the article makes the point of how in the book, the handmaids are basically breeding stock, which we would never think be the case in the real world, but this article proved that wrong. So the article makes light of over controlling husbands in relationships, where they make all the decisions, and really use their spouse for reproduction only. The article had an account from a woman where she had no say in anything that related to their house or lifestyle, which made me think of the commander and the handmaids and other women of the household. This is something that is more hidden than one may realize, but there are support groups for this mental abuse since it causes depression and anxiety. If you guys want, the article ends with quotes from women suffering from this, and they’re quite depressing to say the least. I won’t put them here, but if you want to see them, take a peek on the article. But yeah, that’s the just of it. The Handmaid’s Tale brings to light more conflicts than one may realize on the psychological level.

In The Politics of Dracula, Richard Wasson looks at the character of Count Dracula as an allegory for Eastern European countries which he suggest the novel paints as seeking to “overthrow, through violence and subversion, the more progressive democratic civilization of the West.” He first looks at Lady in the Shroud, which uses similar allegories, to suggest that this would not be the only time Bram Stoker used these political undertones. He then returns to Dracula, analyzing the first setting, a remote place on the fringe of Romania which has seen more than its share of bloodshed, and Dracula’s ancestry as a descendant of Attila the Hun, to establish the political motif. With the motif established, Wasson looks at what the Count’s plot means in terms of the analogy, namely that he poses a threat to modern democracy and progress. The Count’s plan to move to England to accomplish his goals of taking over the western world. Wasson believes Stoker is trying to assert that modern warfare “can be better won by subversion than by invasion.” Dracula’s attempts to move into England legally are a sign that he is trying to perpetuate himself.

Wasson then looks at the antithesis of Dracula–the group of main characters who represent an equally politically-motivated undertone. As an alliance representing the western world against the Count and the East, each member of the group represents some part of western society, such as Godalming using his privilege as a noble, Van Helsinghaving access to the Host as a Catholic, and looks particularly at Quincey Morris as a metaphor for the United States becoming the “armorer of the West.”

Wasson finishes by saying that while progress is what makes England vulnerable to Dracula, it also serves as their greatest weapon against him.

A New Midwesternism in Toni Morrison’s: The Bluest Eye
By: No Author
In this analysis it talks about the vivid images in Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye and how it connected both early twentieth-century African American emigrants and native-born Midwesterners to their region. It also, explores the crosscurrents produced when we read for non-white ethnicity and place. . Given that it is so often understood as monolithically white, the Midwest provides fertile ground for this exploration. And Morrison is a particularly interesting case. Her phenomenal success has produced readings of her as a “universal” writer, no matter her ethnic or regional identity. Yet, her identification as an African American writer, rightfully, has remained, critically important to Morrison herself, and to the scholarly community, while her connection to the Midwest has seemed increasingly ancillary to understandings of Morrison’s work. The Bluest Eye among a decidedly white and seemingly static and homogeneous canon of Midwestern literature and criticism can shed new light on both Morrison’s regional affiliations and on Midwestern culture more broadly.

Hamlet is compelled to face problems of duty, morality, and ethics and correlate to many human problems throughout the years. Mazzeno states that these problems add to the mystery of Hamlet’s complex behavior and reluctance to act. Freudian critics state that Hamlet’s motivation is from the family relationship and that Hamlet is too disturbed and jealous of what his uncle has done. Mazzeno states that if Hamlet had proceeded to act as an avenger, the play would have lacked the moral complexity to which fascinates readers. Hamlet’s accomplishments help with his thoughts and feelings which in turn allow him to see his father’s ghost. Mazzeno concludes that Hamlet’s indecision to act is not weakness, but the result of the complex moral dilemma which he is entangled in.

Although audiences and critics alike know Hamlet for his supposed madness, UC San Diego professor Caralyn Bialo contends that Ophelia absorbs the majority of this madness throughout the story. In her essay, Bialo evaluates instances of Ophelia’s madness through the lens of popular culture. Through using ballads to create Ophelia’s madness, “Shakespeare draws upon a cultural form that was similar to extemporaneous playing—and similarly associated with lower-status audiences—in order to craft one of the play’s most dramatically powerful moments.” From this popular culture lens, Shakespeare broadens the compass of gender-based analyses by recognizing Ophelia as a non-elite cultural tradition, allowing for female resistance to “patriarchal expectation for behavior.” However, Ophelia’s madness has far reaching implications for the play as a whole. Specifically, she take the form of dialogues between courting couples that allow her to personify male wooers and female beloveds and other classes of women. When Ophelia sings her famous condemnation of false lovers. Ultimately, Shakespeare’s stark contrast in both social and economic classes, as well as gender beliefs influenced the play’s effect on society. As Hamlet was both an antic, yet an anti-clowining elitist, Ophelia possess an unresolved tension that dramatizes the work.

Critical Appreciation Of Hamlet: E.K. Chambers
In this analysis Chambers discusses how most critics talk about the big question of if Hamlet was mad or not. He says that Shakespeare did not mean to make Hamlet to be mad in any sense which would put his actions in a quite different category from those of other men. That would have been to divest his work of humanity and leave it meaningless. For the tragedy of Hamlet does not lie in the fact that it begins with a murder and ends with a massacre; it is something deeper, more spiritual than that. The most tragic, the most affecting thing in the world is the ruin of a high soul. This is the theme of Hamlet; it is a tragedy of failure, of a great nature confronted with a low environment, and so, by the perversity of things, made ineffective and disastrous through its own greatness.

Since I’m not sure news editorials can count for this assignment, I figured I’d find two and at least cover my bases. I just really wanted to write about Shooting an Elephant.

In the first one, Orwell, and a Need to Look Like a Sahib by Jim Dwyer, Jim recounts a story of when a black guy from Harlem sits next to him on the train and notices that he’s reading Shooting an Elephant, which he recognizes from a college class. This prompts a conversation about Eric Garner, the black man who was selling cigarettes on the street when police stopped him, tried to arrest him, and ended up killing him trying to hold him down. Mr. Harris (Harlem guy) talks about times he was racially profiled, and ties the officers dealing with Garner back into Orwell’s story–officers feeling eyes on them from all angles, and feeling like if they walk away they’ll lose face, dignity, etc. It’s a really cool parallel that I wouldn’t have thought of, but it helps prove that Orwell is still relevant.

The second editorial, The Anxieties of Impotence, written by David Brooks, looks at the power dynamic between Orwell and the Burmese natives, noting that both parties feel that they are the victim of the other’s greater power. The natives are victims of the British Empire, and Orwell is forced to fulfill the role expected of him by the Burmese natives, forcing him to shoot the elephant despite his misgivings. Brooks then expands this idea to modern politics in general–in every power dynamic, everyone believes “the other guy” is winning. Brooks gives the examples of labor unions vs. corporations and regulators vs. Wall Street, and cites a survey by the Pew Research Center which reported that 64% of Americans believed that “their side” has been losing more. This more abstract use of Orwell’s work is, in my opinion, equally valid, and something that can be observed everywhere–everyone wants to think they’re the underdog, or that they’re fighting against some oppression.

Before I start, the title and author are: 20 Ways The Lord of the Rings is Both Christian and Catholic by Stan Williams. So this is a different topic from what I/we usually do, but I found it intriguing. I read the books and the movies when I was in elementary/middle school, so if I mess up some of the story line, try not to judge me Mrs. Looman. The article makes many points of mention to where Tolkien has put religious symbols, which are much more than I had originally thought. Originally, I thought that when Gandalf came back to life, that was a symbolic representation of Jesus’s resurrection, but this article doesn’t even mention that. It goes on with a list of 20—read if you’d like for all 20—I plan to just go over the ones that really drew my attention. Point 6 in the article brings to light how the hobbits are the most ‘christian-like’: “In the Shire, the Hobbits come naturally to living a beatific life that Christ calls Christians to live by. The Hobbits are the meek that inherit the earth, the merciful who receive mercy, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers”, which I found ironic from all the drinking they do, but they seem to be the most happy—perhaps because they’re the most christian like. The other point that had me ‘shook’ was the correlation to the people of middle earth longing for the return of the rightful king and reunion of the kingdoms for peace, similar to Christians today longing for the return of their king for true peace, and did I mention that Aragorn looks like Christ? There are other great points you can see in the article if you look it up, but these two were the ones that intrigued me the most.

Beaston question whether Hamlet is made and revengeful, or rather a genius and analyzes Hamlet’s delay to action.

Beaston begins with stating that Hamlet opens the first act completely sane. When Ophelia talks to her father, she claims that she has seen Hamlet in an odd state of mind, which Polonius believes that it can only be a result of him being mad about love. The debate between the reason behind Hamlet’s madness has many different reasons, primarily due to personal struggles within. During Hamlet’s famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy, it is revealed that Hamlet is town between two things in his life. He can either fight to avenge his father’s murder, or commit suicide, questioning whether his true downfall was the two different options tearing him apart.

Beaston claims that Hamlet’s madness is justified while occasionally being insane. Hamlet opens the play being mad that he is not able to be with Ophelia, then over his father’s murder, then over himself and his inner thoughts.